Final answer:
The legal argument against the establishment of a national bank in McCulloch v. Maryland focused on the infringement of state jurisdiction by the federal government, through advocating for a strict construction of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court upheld the federal government's implied powers to create a national bank as part of its constitutional authority.
Step-by-step explanation:
The legal argument in McCulloch v. Maryland against the federal government establishing a national bank stemmed from the viewpoint that the government was infringing upon the states' constitutional jurisdiction. Critics, including James Madison, supported a strict construction of the Constitution. They argued that because the Constitution did not expressly authorize the creation of a national bank, it fell outside the powers of the federal government and should be reserved for the states.
However, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, reached a different conclusion. The Court's decision supported the concept of implied powers under the necessary and proper clause of Article I, Section 8, asserting that Congress had the authority to establish a national bank as it was an appropriate means to carry out its enumerated powers, including regulating interstate commerce, collecting taxes, and borrowing money. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a state could not impede the federal government's legitimate actions, signifying that Maryland's tax on the bank was unconstitutional.